Allowed

Bantu v. State of Up.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2022BAIL/2173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving Sections 379, 411 IPC. The court observed the applicant was not named in the FIR and the recovered motorcycle was not linked to the offense before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding conduct and appearance.

Bantu Vs State of Up. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2173 of 2022 Applicant :- Bantu Opposite Party :- State Of Up. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 496 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District -Etah.

¶6

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per recovery memo a motor cycle is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant although he is not named in the FIR. He next submits that after the instant recovery police has planted the applicant in five other cases in the same year. He next submits that applicant was not involved in committing the alleged offence and police due to enmity, has implicated the applicant. He next submits that police has shown the aforesaid recovery of motorcycle though the same has not been connected with any offence. He next contends that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 13 and 14 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 11.06.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that a motorcycle has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and there are five cases criminal history against the applicant and as such he is involved in committing the aforesaid offence.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that applicant was not named in the FIR, further a motorcycle which has not been connected to any offence has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 11.06.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides,

¶10

nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Bantu involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶12

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶13

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶14

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶15

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.2.2022 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.02.24 18:29:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bantu v. State of Up.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bantu v. State of Up.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Abhinva Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Patel Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neha Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Tripathi Vs State of U.P.